PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
0.68 - 0.75
0.33 - 0.86
18.36M / 4.66M (Avg.)
34.50 | 0.02
Steady, sustainable growth is a hallmark of high-quality businesses. Value investors watch these metrics to confirm that the company's fundamental performance aligns with—or outpaces—its current market valuation.
1.16%
Revenue growth under 50% of 0819.HK's 36.01%. Michael Burry would suspect a deteriorating sales pipeline or weaker brand.
20.10%
Gross profit growth at 50-75% of 0819.HK's 38.97%. Martin Whitman would question if cost structure or brand is lagging.
8.18%
EBIT growth below 50% of 0819.HK's 23.53%. Michael Burry would suspect deeper competitive or cost structure issues.
8.18%
Operating income growth under 50% of 0819.HK's 23.53%. Michael Burry would be concerned about deeper cost or sales issues.
85.09%
Positive net income growth while 0819.HK is negative. John Neff might see a big relative performance advantage.
84.38%
Positive EPS growth while 0819.HK is negative. John Neff might see a significant comparative advantage in per-share earnings dynamics.
85.94%
Positive diluted EPS growth while 0819.HK is negative. John Neff might view this as a strong relative advantage in controlling dilution.
-6.85%
Both firms reduce share counts. Martin Whitman would compare buyback intensity relative to free cash flow generation.
1.22%
Slight or no buyback while 0819.HK is reducing diluted shares. John Neff might consider the competitor’s approach more shareholder-friendly.
6.96%
Maintaining or increasing dividends while 0819.HK cut them. John Neff might see a strong edge in shareholder returns.
-10.98%
Negative OCF growth while 0819.HK is at 296.31%. Joel Greenblatt would demand a turnaround plan focusing on real cash generation.
-15.47%
Negative FCF growth while 0819.HK is at 202.51%. Joel Greenblatt would demand improved cost control or more strategic capex discipline.
-35.10%
Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while 0819.HK stands at 1622.24%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.
-46.64%
Negative 5Y CAGR while 0819.HK stands at 302.85%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.
-44.46%
Negative 3Y CAGR while 0819.HK stands at 144.90%. Joel Greenblatt would look for missteps or fading competitiveness that hurt sales.
-8146.73%
Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while 0819.HK stands at 1875.61%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.
36.76%
Below 50% of 0819.HK's 231.33%. Michael Burry would be alarmed about sustained underperformance in generating free operational cash.
-85.39%
Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 0819.HK stands at 369.57%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.
-196.54%
Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 0819.HK is at 96.95%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.
-102.54%
Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 0819.HK is 40.33%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.
-108.70%
Both companies show negative 3Y net income/share growth. Martin Whitman suspects macro or sector-specific headwinds in the short run.
88.86%
Below 50% of 0819.HK's 392.72%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.
-3.72%
Negative 5Y equity/share growth while 0819.HK is at 233.63%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.
-12.03%
Negative 3Y equity/share growth while 0819.HK is at 153.40%. Joel Greenblatt demands an urgent fix in capital structure or profitability vs. the competitor.
-18.72%
Cut dividends over 10 years while 0819.HK stands at 575.41%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
1.37%
AR growth is negative/stable vs. 0819.HK's 18.13%, indicating tighter credit discipline. David Dodd confirms it doesn't hamper actual sales.
20.84%
We show growth while 0819.HK is shrinking stock. John Neff wonders if the competitor is more disciplined or has weaker demand expectations.
2.58%
Positive asset growth while 0819.HK is shrinking. John Neff sees potential for us to outgrow the competitor if returns are solid.
5.91%
Similar to 0819.HK's 6.10%. Walter Schloss finds parallel capital usage or profit distribution strategies.
-3.03%
Both reduce debt yoy. Martin Whitman sees a broader sector shift to safer balance sheets or less growth impetus.
146.15%
R&D growth drastically higher vs. 0819.HK's 40.86%. Michael Burry fears near-term margin erosion unless breakthroughs are imminent.
-18.01%
We cut SG&A while 0819.HK invests at 45.73%. Joel Greenblatt sees a short-term margin benefit but wonders if the competitor invests for future gains.